Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by Stingray Don, Mar 20, 2019.
What say POA?
I say nope, leave it alone in the US. I suspect the European problem is too many stupid rules, but who knows?
What I heard that article say is the current regulatory framework to get whatever Instrument Rating they have (plus user fees to exercise that rating) needs overhauling more than the flying skills portion.
The skills needed to fly safely in IMC don’t change due to a political boundary.
So, if the weather is good enough to take off, but closes down en route...you aren't allowed to land?
While we are promoting sport pilot certificate and basic med, the Europeans want to mandate an instrument rating? That seems completely backwards to me, if they are interesting in promoting GA. It will do exactly the opposite.
At $1000 per checkride it wouldn't make much sense to use it as a stepping stone up to a real IR.
I think you’d be encouraging more pilots on the left side of the bell to take to the skies when they really shouldn’t.
The European instrument flying system is all kinds of retarded and screwed up. The regulator in Europe has no interest in the light end of GA and is usually actively working to kill it off. To be honest, flying in Africa was not really any worse than flying in Europe, overall.
No, no, and no.
There's nothing you don't need to know, and no skill you don't need to have, to fly an approach to 500 and a mile that's any different than 200 and a half mile except not overcontrolling. I think this isn't likely to make getting rated any easier, it won't make staying current any easier, and in fact it may invite more lunatics to go flying on marginal days when they really shouldn't.
nah. but I could see more hood time in primary training. for additional safety but it also may get more people interested in pursuing IR, if they start to understand it better. also that would be additional time towards the minimum hour requirements should they decide to go for it.
What?!!! POA is in unanimous agreement on a topic?! Have I entered an alternate reality?
Ok, I’ll bite. Sounds like worth more discussion/consideration. I followed the link and read the atual proposal. A few points the article either omits or glosses over.
- it is a three-stage training/test process. 1. Basic instrument control/flying. Must pass stage one before proceeding on. 2. Departures/approaches/SIDS/STARS. 3. En-route IFR. (There is a 4th stage for engine out operations if you want to fly ME).
- there is no relaxation of performance standards, only a relaxation of minimum training hours. Once you can pass the test, you get the rating. I am old enough to remember when the FAA required 250 total hours before you could take an instrument check ride.
- the rating expires after 1 year. To keep it active, you must pass a proficiency check every 12 months. No self-certifying of currency.
Change any minds?
Bottom line, poor instrument skills and lack of competence in IFR conditions are deadly. Period. The training and currency rules need to be increased if anything.
Truer words have never been spoken!
Nope. I read that, too. I stand by my original statement that the regulatory scheme and costs need an overhaul to actually encourage instrument flying in Europe.
What their 3-stage process proposal feels like is a 141 IFR program with stage checks as checkrides (with attendant costs).
For a relatively up to date view of flying GA IFR in the UK, take a read here:
Note that if you’ve got a MGTOW over 4400 lbs (roughly) you get to pay Eurocontrol for the privilege of flying it IFR. While that doesn’t cover most light GA, it’s an example of the regulatory environment they face in Europe.
If anything in light of some crashes I've seen, I think the IFR rating may be too easy in this country.
I'm thinking a yearly IPC might not be a bad idea.
In the 135/121 world, it's a 6 month requirement to be PIC, 1 year for SIC. In the MU-2 I'm required to have yearly training (same goes for type rated aircraft, even operated under Part 91) that includes the components of an IPC.
I agree it would be good and help in the 91 world. However I think it goes beyond that - some people just aren't very good instrument pilots and they either need to continue working to get to an appropriate level of competency, or they need to get told "This ain't for you."
I think the problem is proficiency. The courses, checkride, etc., are fairly rigorous. What happens though is many people receive hardly any (<5 hrs) of actual instrument time in their training.. and once they're rated they lose their proficiency. 6 months is very lax for one hold and 6 approaches.. I think that's what burns people. "When were you in the clouds last Jimmy?" - "Oh not since 2015. But I'm totally current, my buddy came up with me and we logged some approaches a few months ago so I'm fine" (what he's not telling you is the CDI needle was pegged and he employed very "basic" use of the foggles)
An IPC a day won’t fix poor performance or prevent someone determined to fly IFR from doing so.
I submit Jerry Wagner.
I certainly don't think that the PTS should be made any less stringent, let's put it that way. But we must also realize the reality of adherence to those standards in terms of letter vs. intent, and people who just pencil whip things.
Let's take the altitude adherence. "Maintains altitude within +/- 100 feet during level flight, headings within +/- 10 degrees, airspeed within +/- 10 knots, and bank angles within +/- 5 during turns."
Let's say you take a pilot who is just bad at instruments and while going along is constantly +/- 100 ft bouncing off those markers, headings constantly bouncing between +/- 10, airspeed all over the place but still within +/- 10 (that will happen if you're doing those previous items), and bank angle constantly shifting, unable to hold a steady bank.
That person has legally met the PTS in all of the requirements, but should not be flying in the clouds. I would not sign off anyone who flew like this, but other CFIs would. Then you have DPEs who will say "Well, I guess I'll pass you since you did technically meet the PTS." Then they go to get a type rating and "Well, you were bouncing all over but you did technically meet the standards."
Then you have the Learjet that crashed in TEB.
There is no room for participation trophies in aviation.
I wish more people felt this way. The challenge to overcome is oversight. There is just no way in most of Pt 91 GA ops to keep the window lickers out once they get past the highly subjective “objective” checkride hurdles.
Not sure it's "too easy" but I think people aren't being held to the standards that already exist. Some of the flying on IPC's I've "tried" to administer was a joke. Most of these pilots probably end up doctor-shopping until they find someone that will sign them off.
Yes, that's really what I meant. See my following post above.
That's one of the things I love about aviation. There are no safespaces or rewards for "trying hard" and showing up
Actually that's the exact problem. There are places in aviation where if you show up, you'll get through even if you shouldn't.
Eventually, though, the ground wins.
Again, I present Jerry Wagner.
Sarcasm on. Good idea. Let's pile more requirements in pursuit of safety. I suggest we make it hard enough to earn and retain that no recreational pilot one ever pursues or uses an instrument rating, I don't care if they only use it to legally fly through a 100' layer at 3000 feet on the way to the beach...... sarcasm off.
You do realize that when you make things too hard people just go do them anyway and abandon any semblance of training/standards? The FAA made a conscious decision years ago to allow people to pursue an instrument rating pretty much as soon as they finished their private to incentive additional formal training into an arena where the PPL was basic at best (instruments). We now have a much greater emphasis on controlling risks in a business that is potentially rife with them and baking that risk assessment into training and mindsets. The result (obviously not due to this alone) is an increasingly safer GA population.
I'm one of those guys pursuing an instrument rating essentially as soon as I finished my private. Not counting 48 hours in 1984, and not counting 2500 hours of NFO time 87-07 , I just passed 100 hours. I have about 20 more hours of sim/actual instrument to go and check ride is 6 May. I fly 2-3 times a week with the CFII. I live in a place where I have gotten no actual instrument time yet since the freezing level usually hovers around pattern altitude the last 3 months as I've worked on the rating. If that works out I'll have my IR < a year from my PPL.
Aviation is a serious business and I suspect I have buried more friends killed via aviation than the majority of folks here. There is a lesson to be learned from every mishap. The way to do this is to ensure we ensure everyone with that coveted plastic card in their wallet understands this is an always learning environment and that means in the cockpit and out and ensuring we understand our and our equipments limitations not by piling on regulations. What will keep us safe is the gray matter between our ears learning how and continuing to learn, not another line in a part 61 and not another $4000 addition to the price of a PPL or IR.
Note that my flying club requires a BFR in the most complex airplane at the rating you're qualed in every year. That kind of self-regulation is fine since I volunteered for it.
Pretty sure an IPC doesn't cost $4,000. At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me, the place I'm renting from wants a proficiency check every 6 months, every other one is basically an IPC and I'm fine with that. I just passed my IR checkride, good stuff, good luck on yours.
I will say, I watch a lot of youtube videos lately, some of these guys are like perfection machines, great pilots. But some are downright scary, loaded with passengers, doing thing that aren't good. Everyone has a bad day, but riding with an instructor at least once a year is a good thing in my book.
I meant more about the cries above for a more extensive and longer IFR training track than the cost to do a suitable BFR/IPC. I'm enjoying the instrument work and certainly no machine at it but it's coming together and making me a better pilot. Congrats on the rating! I'm lucky to have a wife who wants me to do it so the time/money hasn't been an issue to get it done in 4 months. Not everyone is as lucky to get to fly as much as I do.
“Notably, the performance standards are not lowered. As EASA admits, the testing requirements are basically the same as for the US instrument rating.”
I think that is saying their IFR rating is off the charts and nobody just gets one for safety reasons?
Requiring an IPC every so often (which may be legally required anyway depending on the pilot's flying, as you surely know) is really no more onerous than requiring a flight review, which you need to do every 2 years regardless of how many hours you fly. It would actually bringing the instrument rating requirements in line with how we treat all pilots already.
I always figured once I get my IR, I'd do an IPC every 6 months or so just to keep sharp. (Haven't gotten it yet, but that's what I figured.)
@tonycondon always advocated that, having picked up the habit from when he was flying 135 in the 421.
Can you fly IFR prior to passing stage 3?
If not, what's the point? It's a regular instrument rating with two extra checkrides.
I wouldn't mind a required IPC every year or two for the normal instrument rating.
I don't think the minimum hours should be reduced. It's already only 15 hours of dual, in theory, which IMO is not nearly enough... I think the entire 40 hours of instrument time should be dual, and I'd really like to see a requirement for a certain amount of actual.
The restrictions on that rating would make it fairly useless anyway so I don't see the point.
The current instrument rating is pretty BASIC as it is.
Very basic way to die IMHO.
IFR is a great tool even if you never fly in IMC. Some say don't file IFR unless you are ready shoot an ILS to minimums. I would disagree.
I don't know about the Learjet, but Part 91 ops leave a lot of latitude for pilot judgement. That's a good thing. IFR does not have to mean flying in the clouds and shooting approaches to minimums. Does the pilot who barely meets the standards aware of his own limitations? That's what I would be most interesting in knowing during an IPC. If he is aware of his limitations and demonstrates good judgement, I may sign off his IPC. Pilot judgement is more important than skill. Flying IFR in VMC still has a lot of value, which that same pilot can use to build his competency.
Part 135 and 121 can elevate their requirements, but 91 should be left alone. This is a big reason why we have a thriving GA population here, but not in Europe.